Printable View
Hmm, forgot to mention ONE THING;Quote:
Originally Posted by boast
You HAVE the choice. The kernel is open source. Go ahead, modify and recompile it. Just don't distribute your modified kernel because that would be a violation of the rights of those who wrote the original code.
WHAT???? You drank the koolaid?Quote:
Originally Posted by TAXI
Do you not know how dangers are exploited?
Crafty hacker takes over the nvidia blob (which has unknown number of severe dangers waiting to be exploited), and USES IT to interface with the kernel through DMA-BUF.
Being fanatic about GPL won't make your laptops run faster. Be reasonable. Nvidia is not a single person you can blame with bad attitude towards OSS community. Besides engineers it is hoard of lawyers and salesmen who simply count their money. If kernel devs say no-way you get those symbols to Nvidia, then we — end users — won't see Optimus working in any near future, because GPLing the blob is absolutely unreal. One option for Nvidia is to implement Optimus in their driver but leave patching the kernel to distribution. Another solution for security sick ones would be digital signature mechanism so only trusted vendors would be able to use this kernel interface, but devs won't go this way for sure.
Exactly, my thoughts too. Nvidia sucks. I hope they go bankrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by droidhacker
Stop spreading that nonsense, droidhacker! It won't be a license violation and Nvidia blob already has a kernel module. Go and hack it !Quote:
Originally Posted by droidhacker
*** It is worth pointing out that dual-GPU desktop machines don't so much need the power savings of the low power GPU doing the "light" work so much as a laptop would, and that a laptop really doesn't need the high power consumption of a high-performance GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by chithanh
Nvidia's goal here is to keep people from switching their chip off from the BIOS in laptops where having it switched on will have a severe negative effect on battery life --- basically, they don't want people to do what I did with my dual GPU AMD system (both AMD GPUs). I switched off the high performance chip because all it does is suck on the battery. Of course in a dual-AMD system, there is no issue with GPL-only restrictions on the interfaces.
Nvidia GPUs on laptops are pretty much always combined with INTEL primary low power GPUs. Switch off the nvidia and it might as well not be there. Without being able to interface with the intel chip, all it will do is eat battery. It would really suck for them if people REALIZED that the nvidia chip is just a waste.
Dude, you must be smoking something REALLY strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC
I can't think of even ONE task that can't be handled by open source drivers.
Performance is MORE than adequate -- high enough in fact, that I disabled my discrete GPU from the BIOS.
Power consumption... is lower (for my laptop) on Linux than it is on winsuckers. No, I don't dual boot, I erased that crap. Spec says 2.5 hours battery, reality is about 4.
To what amount of time are you referring? My chip is an AMD NI. That makes it about 1.5 years out the gate NOW (less than 1 year out when I purchased it). NOT TEN.
And you are so thoroughly blinded by your misconceptions that you can't accept that your arguments only apply to a VERY small subset of "zealots", not even a significant portion of the open source development community.Quote:
Reality doesn't match the fantasy world you have created in your head. Linux devs seem to only care about being able to run X11 with an xterm on it and do coding in Emacs and vi. They're stuck in the 1990's. Also, they behave like children. They constantly repeat the same thing, "I want the code", like a child in a candy store repeatedly shouting "I want candy." They should grow up and learn to cooperate with proprietary vendors. Even the hardcore "Free Software or Death" guys at FSF gave the world tools to create proprietary software if they so wish (like GCC and glibc). That was a sane decision. It's funny how the kernel devs distance themselves from the "Free Software zealots" and the likes of RMS, but then play the "proprietary drivers are evil" card. What a bunch of hypocrites. The only explanation that makes sense is the conspiracy theory; AMD and Intel trying to damage NVidia. It simply doesn't make any sense otherwise.
You should really read the lkml thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by chelobaka
Renaming symbols to "EXPORT_SYMBOL" does not change anything. You still can't link a binary blob to the linux kernel because the linux kernel is GPL v2 only and the only license that covers any of this is the one in the COPYING file. According to many developers, including Mauro and Alan Cox, this "patch" wouldn't make blobs using DMA_BUF any more legal than now. to use DMA_BUF, you need to interact with the kernel differently than the Nvidia blob does now, and there's no way to do this without making parts of your driver a derivative work of the kernel.
This is not a decision that the kernel devs are making NOW, it is a decision Linus made back in 1991 when he first released Linux. That is the license, and it cannot be retroactively changed, without every single contributor agreeing to it, so Linux is GPL v2 and will remain so forever. If this interferes with Nvidia's business model 20 years later (because they introduced Optimus technology well knowing that it't not compatible and will not be compatible with Linux), then it's unfortunate, but there is NOTHING anybody can do about it.
Renaming the symbols would not change squat, binary blobs using DMA_BUF are illegal and there is nothing anybody can do to change that now, 20 years later. Either join the bandwagon with the companies providing in-tree graphics drivers (Intel and AMD), or give up on the technology you designed not to be compatible with Linux.
Alan Cox is my fucking hero, along with Linus of course.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/1...nt-use-dma-buf
Actually, it most certainly will/does/has.Quote:
Originally Posted by chelobaka
The alternative would be to ONLY have KMS drivers and run llvmpipe for everything else. That would be very slow. So yes, absolutely, GPL makes my laptop FAST.
What's your point?Quote:
Be reasonable. Nvidia is not a single person you can blame with bad attitude towards OSS community. Besides engineers it is hoard of lawyers and salesmen who simply count their money.
Maybe it will teach people NOT TO BUY NVIDIA.Quote:
If kernel devs say no-way you get those symbols to Nvidia, then we — end users — won't see Optimus working in any near future, because GPLing the blob is absolutely unreal.
Or not.
No loss.
And just WHO would be a "trusted vendor"??? I sure don't trust nvidia. I'm sure I'm not the only one.Quote:
One option for Nvidia is to implement Optimus in their driver but leave patching the kernel to distribution. Another solution for security sick ones would be digital signature mechanism so only trusted vendors would be able to use this kernel interface, but devs won't go this way for sure.